Are Gray Wolves Back? A Puppy Sighting In Northwest Colorado Is The Best Clue Yet (Denver: living in, fence)

[smith99]

Originally Posted by otowi

I think they say those are coyotes not wolves...

I am no biologist... but I have also seen grey wolves in Wyoming and they looked and sounded very different from coyotes. I also used to hunt coyotes in area south of Gunnison.

This may not be as well known in town of Gunny, but for anyone who has lived/spent a significant amount of time in the “Soldier’s Park” area, they know. I am talking about an extremely rural area with millions of acres of national forest and blm land, not the town Of Gunnison.

[otowi]

https://www.outtherecolorado.com/new...22e52a8f5.html

A sad update.

[Colorado Rambler]

I am revisiting this thread one more time before the election to give folks one last chance to make their case for/against the reintroduction of grey wolves to Colorado and how they voted on that particular ballot question. One of the things I know is that wolves will cull elk and deer herds of those individual which suffer from wasting sickness. Ultimately this will make for a healthier deer and elk population and go a long way toward keeping the wasting sickness at bay.

[TCHP]

Sitting the fence on this one. Naturalist in me wants to say yes. Compensation for ranchers on losses means it has a viable means of reimbursing those most at risk for loss to their re-introduction. They definitely could improve health of deer and elk herds.

Flip side is we all pay for compensation to ranchers and it could be exploited. The predatory animal status and shoot on site mentality of many in these parts of the state could make this an expensive exercise in futility.

[Colorado Rambler]

Originally Posted by TCHP

Sitting the fence on this one. Naturalist in me wants to say yes. Compensation for ranchers on losses means it has a viable means of reimbursing those most at risk for loss to their re-introduction. They definitely could improve health of deer and elk herds.

Flip side is we all pay for compensation to ranchers and it could be exploited. The predatory animal status and shoot on site mentality of many in these parts of the state could make this an expensive exercise in futility.

Very true. Never underestimate the ignorance of the American public!

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by TCHP

Sitting the fence on this one. Naturalist in me wants to say yes. Compensation for ranchers on losses means it has a viable means of reimbursing those most at risk for loss to their re-introduction. They definitely could improve health of deer and elk herds.

Flip side is we all pay for compensation to ranchers and it could be exploited. The predatory animal status and shoot on site mentality of many in these parts of the state could make this an expensive exercise in futility.

Do we compensate ranchers for drought or choosing dumb places to ranch? It wouldn’t surprise me if we did given that most agriculture has to be highly regulated and welfared in order for farmers to not implode their own economy. Maybe ranchers trying to force cattle onto a landscape that isn’t very well suited for it is the expensive exercise in futility.

[justmyopinion]

They have been around our area for awhile; we have seen them on trail rides. But luckily, there are very few and they stay hidden.

I love animals, but voted against the "reintroduction to SW Colorado bill". I know they have done good things in Yellowstone, but this is NOT Yellowstone. About 90 percent of Yellowstone sees no people. SW Colorado is covered with trails and people bicycling and trail riding... to say nothing of the hikers and campers. We already have challenges with the mountain lions who have no predators.

If SW Colorado were still a wilderness, it would be a different situation, but.... people are already here, and as much as I would like to change that, its not going to happen. When the wolves wander outside of Yellowstone, they get shot, and that will certainly happen here. Wolves will be wolves, and they will not mix well with humans trying to hike and camp. I have a friend who is with the Parks and Wildlife and he said, "This bill had to be written by someone who never leaves his office, and knows nothing of the outdoors. If we truly love wolves, we will NOT reintroduce them to an area that is over-infested with hikers and off roaders."

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by justmyopinion

They have been around our area for awhile; we have seen them on trail rides. But luckily, there are very few and they stay hidden.

I love animals, but voted against the "reintroduction to SW Colorado bill". I know they have done good things in Yellowstone, but this is NOT Yellowstone. About 90 percent of Yellowstone sees no people. SW Colorado is covered with trails and people bicycling and trail riding... to say nothing of the hikers and campers. We already have challenges with the mountain lions who have no predators.

If SW Colorado were still a wilderness, it would be a different situation, but.... people are already here, and as much as I would like to change that, its not going to happen. When the wolves wander outside of Yellowstone, they get shot, and that will certainly happen here. Wolves will be wolves, and they will not mix well with humans trying to hike and camp. I have a friend who is with the Parks and Wildlife and he said, "This bill had to be written by someone who never leaves his office, and knows nothing of the outdoors. If we truly love wolves, we will NOT reintroduce them to an area that is over-infested with hikers and off roaders."

You could make that case for literally any wild species. The only ethical choices are to either try to restore the natural balance or just put wildlife out of its misery. Trying to maintain the 20th Century paradigm is prolonging ecological suffering.

[WinterJo]

I voted for reintroduction. I do not consider them a restored species because they inhabit very little of their historic range. We already live with bears and mountain lions, so I fail to see how living with wolves will be that much worse.

[Phil P]

Wow this vote looks to be right on the fence. This is why state issues matter so much more than presidential elections; your vote really does not matter in a state like Colorado for the president, but it definitely does for items like the wolves.

I hope this does not pass for 2 reasons: I don't like the ambiguity around wolf kill reimbursement and the potential windfall there; also the more I've heard, it sounds like mountain lions are increasingly taking the apex predator role that was vacated when wolves disappeared. It sounds like lion numbers are up across the state, you can actually go hunt them in places like Carbondale where the elk numbers are down due to the lion population. Lions are better than wolves for Colorado IMO because they present less of a threat to people and they usually only kill what they eat.